XAvier Periole wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, David van der Spoel wrote:
>>> Marc Baaden wrote:
>>> Hi Xavier (and Johnny),
>>> I quite agree with what Xavier says. Still I would like to point out
>>> that we have used CG models to pull on them and at least qualitatively
>>> they behave quite reasonably, although these models have never been
>>> parameterized or systematically tested with this kind of application in
>>> mind.
>> In general models that have been parameterized for one specific
>> observable may not reproduce other observables *unless* the
>> observables used for parameterization have a clear physical basis
>> *and* the energy function captures the correct physics. Most
>> biomolecular force fields (including Martini as far as I know) have
>> been parameterized to reproduce density and energy of condensed phase
>> (liquids), and hence this kind of data is usually reproduced quite
>> well. However mixtures of components (e.g. two liquids) are usually
>> not reproduced as well.
>>>> By doing the kind of pulling simulations, preferably both atomistic
>> and with CG models, one can try to verify whether the CG models can
>> actually reproduce force curves to a comparable accuracy as all atom
>> models. This kind of work should be done *systematically* before any
>> applications.
>>>> What does this boil down to? If you want to apply MD tools to get an
>> accurate force curve *now*, use all atom models. If you want to play
>> with and test CG models, then do a large systematic test (many
>> systems). If the CG models perform reasonably, you have cleared
>> everyone's conscience and will get a lot of citations. If they don't
>> then you should try to understand why not. Are there fundamental flaws
>> in the model? If so, can they be fixed?
> This is of course the idea, but then comes the problem of believing that
> atomistic simulations
> are actually giving the right answer!
Of course, on the other hand CG models were developed to a large extent
by comparison with A models, so if these are wrong, CG models are
hopeless...
In addition, especially for this kind of applications, does the
experimental data measure the same thing that we try to calculate?
Questions, questions.
>> Have fun.
>>>>> What I mean by qualitatively is that I wouldn't trust a force-extension
>>> curve of such simulations (unless you do some force-matching :)) - re:
>>> FD144), but the conformational changes that are observed in a moderate
>>> pulling regime do seem to make sense.
>>> The experiments we carried out were interactive pulling experiments,
>>> either to induce opening and closure of the guanylate kinase enzyme or
>>> to explore the membrane anchoring and the mechanical properties of the
>>> SNARE complex. This is briefly described in reference [1].
>>> Cheers,
>>> Marc
>>> [1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21235>>> O. Delalande, N. Férey, G. Grasseau and M. Baaden:
>>> Complex Molecular Assemblies at hand via Interactive Simulations,
>>> 2009, J. Comp. Chem.
>>>x.periole at rug.nl said:
>>>>> Hi Johnny,
>>>>> I am not familiar with pulling and even less with gromacs but I would
>>>>> be very cautious in using the MARTINI force field for the kind of
>>>>> simulation you are doing. This CG model has not been tested at all
>>>>> for this and it might not be very good at it! But I would be very
>>>>> interested in knowing how it actually perform.
>>>>> XAvier.
>>>>>> --
>> David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
>> Molec. Biophys. group, Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
>> Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone: +46184714205. Fax: +4618511755.
>>spoel at xray.bmc.uu.sespoel at gromacs.orghttp://folding.bmc.uu.se>> _______________________________________________
>> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org>>http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users>> Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before
>> posting!
>> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the www
>> interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.>> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php>> _______________________________________________
> gmx-users mailing list gmx-users at gromacs.org>http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-users> Please search the archive at http://www.gromacs.org/search before posting!
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use thewww
> interface or send it to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.> Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/mailing_lists/users.php
--
David van der Spoel, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
Molec. Biophys. group, Dept. of Cell & Molec. Biol., Uppsala University.
Box 596, 75124 Uppsala, Sweden. Phone: +46184714205. Fax: +4618511755.
spoel at xray.bmc.uu.sespoel at gromacs.orghttp://folding.bmc.uu.se